Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agronomie de Rennes by klutzfu47

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 23

									Ecole Nationale Supérieure            Institut de recherche pour le
 d’Agronomie de Rennes                 développement – Indonésie




Conditions and perspectives of rural breeding of
      Pangasius hypophthalmus in Jambi
              (Sumatra, Indonesia)
  Comparison between two production systems:
            floating cages and ponds




                         September 2002


                         Johanna Herfaut
                                 Acknowledgements

                                    My most sincere thanks to:


                                   RCA - RIFF for welcoming me,
                       BBAT Jambi and Bapak Maskur for their collaboration,
                              Jacques Slembrouck for his management,
                         Patrice Levang and Marc Legendre for their help,
                                       My ENSAR teachers,
                                    Dafzel, excellent counterpart,
                                  Ramadhani, CIFOR statistician,
                                 Bambang, the wizard with pictures,
                        All Indonesian people who have been so hospitable.




                                          Abstract


The breeding of Pangasius hypophthalmus has known a very important development these last five
years. At the Jambi’s market around 2 tons of Pangasius hypophthalmus are sold every day.
In ponds, the techniques are mastered and results are good, but producers have to face marketing
problems. During the dry season, lots of ponds and cages in Jambi’s area become dry and the fish
farmers are obliged to sell their production, resulting in market saturation and low prices.
In cages, there is a problem of mortality; the mortality rate is very high with an average of 37%.
Consequently, fish farmers lose a lot of money. The mortality seems to be due to water quality.
Since the economic crisis the price of feed has been increasing steadily. Thus, the profitability of
aquaculture has been decreasing. Some farmers have even been obliged to abandon the production.
But the number of exploitations still grows. Solutions must be found to ensure the sustainability of
aquaculture. Two different paths can be considered: the reduction of the production cost and the
research of new markets.




                                                                                                  2
Contents


INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.      GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................................................................... 6
     1.1.      VILLAGE DETAILS .................................................................................................................................... 6
     1.2.      HISTORY OF AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 6
     1.3.      PRODUCTION TOOLS................................................................................................................................. 7
     1.4.      PHYSICO-CHEMICAL ANALYSES ............................................................................................................... 7
2.      GROSS RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 9
     2.1. REARING TECHNIQUES ............................................................................................................................. 9
       2.1.1.   Pond maintenance ........................................................................................................................... 9
       2.1.2.   Fingerlings, rearing density and cycle duration ............................................................................. 9
       2.1.3.   Feeding.......................................................................................................................................... 10
       2.1.4.   Pathology and treatment ............................................................................................................... 10
     2.2 TECHNICAL RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 11
     2.2. ECONOMIC RESULTS............................................................................................................................... 12
       2.2.1.   Returns .......................................................................................................................................... 12
       2.2.2.   Commercialisation ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.      ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 14
     3.1. IMPACT OF TECHNIQUES ON YIELDS ....................................................................................................... 14
     3.2. ECONOMIC RETURN................................................................................................................................ 15
       3.2.1. Factors which affect economic return........................................................................................... 15
       3.2.2. Profitability ................................................................................................................................... 16
       3.2.3. Aquaculture: one activity among others........................................................................................ 16
4.      IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 17
     4.1. INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR AQUACULTURE ........................................................... 17
     4.2. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................... 17
       4.2.1. Fingerlings size and initial density ............................................................................................... 17
       4.2.2. Water quality control in ponds...................................................................................................... 17
       4.2.3. Feeding.......................................................................................................................................... 17
       4.2.4. Diseases and treatments identification.......................................................................................... 18
     4.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM ................................................................................................................... 18
     4.4. ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND MARKET IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................. 18
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 19




                                                                                                                                                                   3
Introduction
In the province of Jambi, freshwater productions represented 7 800 tons in 2001. Aquaculture has had
a very fast extension in the last few years, particularly catfish rearing, but only little data is available.
So it raises the following question: “According to the success of the aquaculture in Indonesia, what are
the problems, which still hinder the development of a sustainable aquaculture in the province of
Jambi?”


Figure 1: Evolution of halieutic production in Jambi province
            70000

            60000
                                                   marine catches
            50000
                                                   freshwater catches
            40000
  in tons




                                                   shrimp
            30000                                  aquaculture in rice field
                                                   cages
            20000
                                                   ponds
            10000

               0
                93

                94

                95

                96

                97

                98

                99

                00

                01
             19

             19

             19

             19

             19

             19

             19

             20

             20




To answer this question, we have chosen the example of the breeding of Pangasius hypophthalmus in
the province of Jambi in Sumatra. Five villages have been studied Tankit, Lubuk Ruso, Senaning,
Kuap and Kubu Kandang. Two systems of production are present: floating cages in the Batang Hari
river (Lubuk Ruso, Senaning, Kuap and Kubu Kandang) and ponds in Tankit.


Figure 2: Map of the study area




                                                                                                           4
Data collected concerned:
   - history of the development of aquaculture,
   - breeding system, production method,
   - technical and economic performances,
   - transfer and adaptation of new technology by the fish farmers,
   - origin of fingerling,
   - organisation of aquaculture and its importance in different villages,
   - marketing problems.

The study has been carried out in collaboration with IRD (French Research Institute for Development),
the RCA-RIFF (Research Centre for Aquaculture – Research Institute for Freshwater Fisheries) and
the BBAT-Jambi (Centre for freshwater aquaculture development)

In Tankit, among 415 families in the village, 111 own ponds. During this survey, 29,7 % of fish farmers
have been interviewed. Data concerning 110 cycles have been collected.
On the Batang Hari site, there were 198 fish farmers, but only 101 families (35%) reared Pangasius
hypophthalmus. Data concerning 40 fish producers have been collected.

Physico-chemical analyses have also been carried out, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity and ammonia nitrogen, in 19 ponds and every morning in the river.




                                                                                                     5
1. General presentation of the study area
    1.1. Village details

General information about the villages where the survey has taken place is summarised in table 1.

Table 1: Village presentation
                                                                               Kubu
       Village name          Lubuk Ruso         Senaning         Kuap                        Tankit
                                                                              Kandang
       Inhabitants                3 126             700          1 126            679         2 000

    Number of families             788              148           411             117          415
    Surface area (ha)            53 000           25 000         21 000          3 896        1 611

 Number of fish farmers            57              27-36           34             75           111
    Number of rearing
                               211 cages        103 cages      78 cages       315 cages     303 ponds
        structures
   Average number of
  rearing structures per           3.7              3.2            2.3            4.2           3
        fish farmer
                               All farmers
                                                                                15 cages
Percentage of Pangasius       10% of cages         All fish   30% of fish
                                                                                  (1 fish
    hypophthalmus               with "Red         farmers       farmers
                                                                                 farmer)
                                 Tilapia"
  Other activities in the       Sawmill, rice field, vegetables, fruits: durian et duku,    Pineapple
         villages               rubber tree, livestock farming, workers, gold-digging       cultivation




    1.2. History of aquaculture development

Pond site: Tankit

Since the first ponds were created in1998, the expansion of aquaculture has been considerable. The
first fish farmer wanted to make use of chicken scraps from his chicken trade (mainly intestines). He
received assistance from the Dinas Perikanan (Fisheries Service of the district) and the BBAT-Jambi
(Jambi Centre for freshwater aquaculture development). Afterwards, many other farmers followed this
pioneer. A training and consultation network between fish farmers has generated knowledge and
ability.




                             Fast development… already a lot of ponds


                                                                                                          6
Cage site: villages on the Batang Hari river

Pangasius hypophthalmus rearing began in 1992. Chinese investors employed a farmer to take care
of their cages and feed the fish. They divided the benefits in two equal parts. In 1997, the economic
crisis forced the Chinese to stop this activity eventually taken over by local farmers.
In 1997, the government also provided financial help in Senaning and Kubu Kandang to incite farmers
to build cages.
In 2000, the Dinas Perikanan helped the fish farmers to obtain loans from a development bank.
An active training and consultation network among fish farmers generated knowledge and ability.




                                     Floating cages in Lubuk Ruso



    1.3. Production tools

Pond site: Tankit
15,9 x 8,5 m ; depth : 1.5 m
Surface: 136.8 m²; estimated volume: 208 m3
Investment: Rp. 1 130 000

Cage site: villages on the Batang Hari river Cages
3,8 x 2,0 m; depth: 1.7 m
Volume: 11.3 m3
Investment: Rp. 740 000



    1.4. Physico-chemical analyses

In ponds water condition is very variable (table 2). The pH is very low before adding lime (nearly
3 – 4).


Table 2: Physicochemical characteristics of the ponds
                     DO       Temperature (°C) pH              Conductivity         [N-NH3/NH4+]
                    (mg/l)                                         (µS)                (mg/l)
Average              1,56            30,5          6,1            304,8                 9,2
Standard deviation   2,4              1,9          0,7            216,7                 8,8
Minimum              0,26            27,0          3,9            41,90                 0,7
Maximum             11,05            33,5          7,0             797                  24,2




                                                                                                   7
The dissolved oxygen concentration is very low too, and decreases during the cycle (figure 3).
At the same time, ammonia nitrogen concentration increases a lot, and can be very high at the end of
the cycle. If the pH is too high (above 7), NH3 concentration could become toxic to the fish (figure 4).



Figure 3: Evolution of dissolved oxygen concentration in ponds
                         12

                         10
        DO at 17h mg/L




                          8

                          6
                                                            y = 4,7448e-0,0168x
                          4
                                                               R2 = 0,6083
                          2

                          0
                              0   20   40     60     80      100     120      140       160
                                             Cycle duration (day)




Figure 4: Evolution of ammonia nitrogen concentration in ponds
                         30

                         25
    concentration mg/L




                                        y = 0,0008x 2 + 0,0174x + 1,8049
                         20
                                                  R2 = 0,9501
                         15

                         10

                         5

                         0
                              0   20   40     60      80      100      120        140    160
                                             Cycle duration (day)



Water quality in the river is better (table 3) than in ponds. The pH is very stable. Dissolved oxygen
concentration is always between 5 and 6. The quality can change at the transition between dry and
rainy seasons, but it is considered as stable in short time.
But in the river the pathology transmission and pollution threat is more frequent.


Table 3: Physicochemical characteristics of the Batang Hari River

   DO (mg/L)                                Temperature (°C)                        Conductivity (µS)   pH
  5,45 +/- 0,54                               28,9 +/- 0,7                            68,4 +/- 9,3      6-7
  [4,53 ; 6,42]                               [27,2 ; 29,8]                           [52,2 ;86,2]




                                                                                                              8
2. Gross results
     2.1. Rearing techniques
          2.1.1.    Pond maintenance

After every harvest, ponds have to be emptied and cleaned. The farmers treat new water, which
comes from the ground, with fertilisers (chemical or organic), salt and quicklime. Doses are
summarised in table 4.

Table 4: Treatment and average doses for pond maintenance

                             CaO quantity              Salt quantity            Chicken manure     Chemical manure
                               (kg/m3)                   (kg/m3)                quantity (kg/m3)    quantity (kg/m3)
Average                         0,217                      0,042                     1,485              0,038
Standard deviation              0,138                      0,037                     1,019              0,019
Minimum                         0,023                        0                         0                   0
Maximum                         0,625                      0,143                     4,167              0,083



          2.1.2.    Fingerlings, rearing density and cycle duration

At the beginning of the cycle, fingerlings spread in ponds or in cages range between 1,5 and 3 inches
of length. Produced by different suppliers, they mainly come from Java. In Tankit most of fingerlings
come from the BBAT-Jambi. A part of this stock is reared in recycling water systems before being
moved to the ponds.


Figure 5 : Pangasius hypophthalmus fingerlings suppliers
                                                                                   Jakarta         Java
                Arifin
                                          Java                                      11%            12%
                16%
                                          24%
                                                                                                          BBAT Jambi
                                                                                                             2%

                                                                     Sukabumi
                                                                       28%

                                             BBAT Jambi
         Mustari                                20%
          40%                                                                                          Jambi
                                                                                                        47%

                   For ponds in Tankit                                           For Cages in Batang Hari river

* Mustari and Arifin: fish farmers who grow larvae in recycling water systems
** Sukabumi: main producing area in West-Java
*** Java: unknown origin

In ponds the stocking density ranges from 2,6 to 19,8 fingerlings per m3, with an average of 8,5
fingerlings per m3.
In cages the density is higher, on average 125,7 fingerlings per m3 and ranges from 76,9 to 192,3
fingerlings per m3.

The cycle duration is the same in ponds and in cages: more or less 5 months.




                                                                                                                       9
        2.1.3.   Feeding

At first fingerlings are fed with powder for shrimps, with 40 % of protein content until the age of 1
month. Then, in ponds, fish farmers give a bigger size of feed (diameter: 2 mm), with lower protein
content (about 29 %). From 2 month of age, the diameter of feed is increased to 3 mm with the same
composition as the second one; protein rate is between 25 % and 30 % depending on the brand. (Cf.
feed composition: appendix 1).




                                     Feeding fingerlings in a pond



        2.1.4.   Pathology and treatment

In ponds, the highest mortality rate of the fish is observed before 1 month of rearing. Fish are like
disorientated and swim at the pond surface, and then quickly die. After 3 months of rearing, we have
observed another symptom with fishes, which refuse to eat. The more difficult period is the dry season
when the water level decreases in ponds. Fish farmers do not use antibiotics, they just add salt and/or
quicklime to improve water conditions.
In cages, external lesions (skin coloration, skin lesion…) are more numerous due to infection of
bacteria (Aeromonas hydrophila) or water pollution. Pathologies often appear at the transition between
dry and rainy seasons, when river water level is usually unstable and suspension materials increase.
For fighting against the previous diseases, fish farmers use antibiotics (50 % of farmers) or vitamin
complement (25% of farmers) blending in the feed. However, the statistic analyses show that there is
no significant effect on mortality rate with these 2 treatments, which means that treatments are not well
adapted (annexe 14).




                      Observed symptoms in cages in Senaning due to pollution



                                                                                                      10
    2.2 Technical results

The results are summarised in table 5.

Table 5: Main production characteristics
                                    Ponds in Tankit                    Cages in the Batang Hari river
                             Average     Standard deviation             Average     Standard deviation
Initial density (fingerlings   8,5                  3,0                  127,1               29,1
        number /m3)                             [2,6 ;19,8]                          [76,92 ; 192,31]
                               2,35                0,43                   2,28               0,45
 Fingerlings size (inches)
                                              [1,50 ; 3,00]                                 [1 ; 3]
                              148,4                17,8                   147                 18
  Cycle duration (month)
                                               [120 ; 210]                               [105 ; 180]
                               1,53                0,37                   1,84               0,82
  Food conversion ratio
                                              [0,64 ;2,78]                              [1,02 ; 5,93]
                              0,492               0,103                  0,478             0,116
      Final weight (kg)
                                             [0,261;0,877]                            [0,300 ;0,750]
                               12,6                19,6                   37,1               16,3
   Mortality rate (en %)
                                               [0,7;100,0]                               [8% ; 75%]
         Production            3,56                1,41                  37,72             12,47
           (kg/m3)                              [0,66 ;7,5]                           [12,30 ; 62,80]
                                                    54                                        29
  Fingerlings price (Rp)       279                                        257
                                                [90 ; 375]                               [175 ; 350]
                                                   376                                       240
     Feed price (Rp/kg)       2 564                                      3 015
                                             [1400 ; 3000]                             [2500 ; 3400]
   Average selling price                           499                                       362
                              6 559                                      7 288
           (Rp/kg)                           [5250 ; 7200]                             [5700 ; 7800]
 Profit per fingerling (Rp)    788                                        395


In Tankit, production results are good and transfer of technology has been very well accepted. We can
see that results are better in Tankit even if water conditions are less favourable than in the Batang Hari
River. The mortality seems to be due to water quality, particularly to oxygen, which is always very low.

In the Batang Hari River, the main problem is fish mortality, which is very high. It shows a problem of
diseases and water quality. The mortality seems to be due to pollution. The losses are considerable,
and for the moment the farmers do not get enough technical information about diseases and
treatments.




                                                                                                       11
    2.2. Economic results
        2.2.1.   Returns

Table 6: Average return per cycle per pond
                       Inputs (Rp)                                              Output (Rp)
                                   Standard deviation                              Standard deviation
    Category        Average                                       Average
                                 [minimum ; maximum]                             [minimum ; maximum]
 Fingerlings cost   394 479               127 671
                                     [93500 ; 750000]
    Feed cost      2 345 014             1 126 614
                                    [12000 ; 5121750]
   Harvest cost      97 611                56 900
                                        [0 ; 225000]
  Maintenance       167 084                85 077
      cost                           [27500 ; 322500]
  Depreciation       27 050
                                         1 239 032                                     1 905 507
      Total        2 978 665                                     4 094 438
                                   [225000 ; 5899000]                              [400000 ; 9018100]
                                                                                       1 150 539
   Net return                                                    1 115 773
                                                                                  [-1217900 ; 4340000]
  Output/Input                                  1,41 +/- 0,51 ; [0,43 ; 3,50]


Table 7: Average return per cycle per cage
                       Inputs (Rp)                                              Output (Rp)
                                   Standard deviation                               Standard deviation
    Category        Average                                       Average
                                 [minimum ; maximum]                              [minimum ; maximum]
 Fingerlings cost   378 280               100 122
                                    [225000 ; 570000]
    Feed cost      2 338 404              921 083
                                   [903500 ; 5405000]
   Harvest cost      37 285                30 693
                                        [0 ; 150000]
 Treatment cost      38 695                50 735
                                        [0 ; 240000]
   Hired labour      28 049                95 393
                                        [0 ; 425000]
    Financial        38 186                71 006
    expenses                            [0 ; 330000]
                    132 596                64 409
  Depreciation                       [13333 ; 350000]
                   2 933 551             1 065 064                                     1 236 953
       Total                                                     3 181 320
                                   [486000 ; 5879333]                              [900000 ; 6533333]
                                                                  247 769               923 372
   Net return
                                                                                  [-1792333 ; 1915500]
  Output/Input                                   1,15 +/- 0,46 ; [0,33; 3,35]

NB: - Depreciations have been calculated depending on the life duration of material (buildings,
cages…)
     - Pond maintenance cost includes: pump hire, petrol, labour, and inputs (salt, lime and fertilisers)




                                                                                                      12
        2.2.2.   Commercialisation

Pond site : Tankit

Purchasers come directly from Jambi’s market with their own cars. Usually 3 buyers come every night
to Tankit to buy between 800 and 1 200 kg. Fish farmers have only to pay the harvesters. During the
dry season, lots of ponds and cages in this area become dry and the fish farmers have to sell their
production. Therefore the market in saturated and the prices plummet.
Since the economic crisis the price of feed has been increasing regularly and fish farmers’ net return
has been steadily decreasing.

Cage site : villages on the Batang Hari river

The marketing system is quite different. There is a group of 30 buyers from the villages, who work with
motorcycles. They directly sell to restaurants and to small markets in the province. They do not yet
experience overproduction problems. The prices are higher than in Tankit, but the farmers have also
to tackle with harsh increases in feed prices.




                                                                                                    13
3. Analysis of the results
              3.1. Impact of techniques on yields

Pond site: Tankit

Statistical analyses show that production per m3 is significantly correlated:
    - positively to:
             • cycle duration,
             • lime quantity,
             • final fish weight,
             • initial density of fingerlings (number/m3),
             • total feed distributed (quantity per m3),
    - negatively to:
             • pond volume,
             • mortality rate.

Using linear multiple regression with SPAD the best model obtained is:
Production = - 2,2 + 0,3 Fingerlings/m3 + 6,2 Final weight – 5,4 Mortality + 0,1 feed/ m3
And R²= 0,9408

Other relations have been found such as:
   - Initial density is negatively correlated with pond volume that means fish farmers do not use big
        enough ponds; the density in small ponds is higher than in big ones.
   - Mortality is negatively correlated to initial density.
   - Lime quantity influences mortality rate.


Figure 6: Relation between mortality rate and lime quantity in pond
                    1,2


                    1,0                                                   Mortality = exp(-9,93 CaO)
                                                                          R² = 0,64943
                     ,8
                                                                          Sigf = 0,0000
                                                                          Optimum for: 0,4 kg/ m
                     ,6


                     ,4
  mortalité (en%)




                     ,2


                    0,0
                                                                        Observed

                    -,2                                                 Exponential
                      0,0       ,1    ,2     ,3     ,4   ,5   ,6   ,7


                          quantité de CaO (kg/m3)


Cage site : villages on Batang Hari river

Statistic analyses show that production per m3 is significantly correlated:
    - positively with:
             • initial density (fingerlings number/m3),
             • final fish weight,
             • total food distributed (quantity per m3),
    - negatively with:
             • food conversion ratio,
             • mortality rate.




                                                                                                       14
Another relation has been found: feed conversion ratio and mortality rate are positively correlated.
That confirms that most fishes die at the end of the production cycle and have consumed a lot of feed.


Figure 7: Relation between mortality rate and feed conversion ratio in cages
                         6



                         5
                                                                                  IC = 0,53 ln (Mortality)
                                                                                  R² = 0,863
                                                                                  Sigf = 0,000
                         4



                         3
  Indice de conversion




                         2



                         1
                                                                                  Observed

                         0                                                        Logarithmic
                             0      10    20   30       40   50   60   70   80


                             Taux de mortalité (en %)



Using linear multiple regressions with SPAD the best model obtained is:
Production = 24,5 - 7,2 IC + 0,1 Initial density – 20,4 Mortality + 0,3 Feed quantity
And R² = 0.8640


                3.2. Economic return
                                 3.2.1.   Factors which affect economic return

Table 8: Average production cost per cycle
                             In ponds                                                                          In cages
                                                   en Rp/kg                        %                en Rp/kg               %
Fingerlings                                       646.68                         13                   905.41              13
Feed                                            3 791.22                         77                 5 693.30              79
Medicines                                           0.00                          0                    91.05              1
Harvest cost                                      158.20                          3                    87.73              1
Employee cost                                       0.00                          0                   132.00              2
Maintenance                                       270.80                          6                     0.00              0
Depreciation                                       43.84                          1                   275.18              4
Total                                           4 910.75                         100                7 184.67              100

The main cost comes from feed, it is the biggest spending during the cycle, even higher than
investment.
But for this year feed price constantly increased, and the fish-selling price decreased, thus
considerably reducing the profitability of aquaculture.




                                                                                                                                15
        3.2.2.       Profitability

Feed has a big impact on returns, so we have tried to make a simulation of net return with a variable
feed price (annexe 2).
Break even point is reached with a feed price of:
    - for rearing in ponds: Rp 3564/kg
    - for rearing in cages: Rp 3222/kg

Self made and industrial feed do not give different results: feed conversion ratio and feed cost per fish
are not significantly different (annexe 3). But on average, with self made feed the conversion ratio is
higher and the feed cost per fish is lower.


        3.2.3.       Aquaculture: one activity among others

Aquaculture is usually a complementary activity, which provides the family with an extra-income.
When farmers have money they invest in aquaculture as well as in other activities.


Figure 8: Activities (other than aquaculture) for investigated fish farmers
           Tankit                                                      Batang Hari villages
                     3%                                                                                    3%
             3%                                                                                     10%
       9%

                                                                                                                        34%
                                                                1 activity
                                      39%
                                                                2 activities
                                                                3 activities                  28%
                                                                4 activities
                                                                5 activities

    46%
                                                                                                                25%



Figure 9: Main activities for investigated fish farmers (percentage of income for each activity)

                          other external
                              works
                               9%                                                                         aquaculture
                teacher                                                                                      17%
                  6%                              aquaculture
                                                     30%
   chicken rearing
         6%

   pineapple
   wholesaler
      6%

       home industry
           9%                                                                  other activities
                                     production                                     83%
                                      ananas
                                        34%




                                                                                                                              16
4. Identified problems and recommendations
    4.1. Integration and management support for aquaculture

Integration has been very good. The structures and the rearing techniques are easy and accessible
(low investment…).
Management support, by the Dinas Perikanan and the BBAT-Jambi, is very important, even more for
the technical help. In Tankit, where fishfarmers have more contacts with the BBAT-Jambi, results
seem better than on the river site.
In Kuap a lot of farmers have stopped their activities. Half of the cages are empty or neglected.
Farmers got financial help to begin the breeding, but motivation, knowledge and management support
were not sufficient. Contrary to the others villages, there were a lot of insolvencies.


    4.2. Technical problems and recommended improvements

There are hardly technical problems, however a few points can still be improved.
All technical improvements can be done very quickly, but not without support and previous research.


        4.2.1.   Fingerlings size and initial density

The results of statistical analyses have shown that the ponds of big volume are underused and the
maximal density is not attained in the cages.
At the same time, we have seen that initial size of fingerlings has a significant impact on the
production per m3.
From these results, in order to optimise the production yield, farmers should be encouraged to use
bigger fingerlings for initialising each cycle and research should provide farmers with optimal density
figures for every rearing structure.


        4.2.2.   Water quality control in ponds

In the Tankit ponds, the water quality is not optimal with a very low oxygen concentration and very
high ammonia concentration. In this area, diseases seem directly linked to the bad water quality.
It has been shown that high ammonia and low oxygen concentrations can be responsible for reducing
the growth, lack of appetite and weakening fish (De Kinkelin et al., 1985).
We suggest:
     - to increase dissolved oxygen concentration with pumps, after having tested efficiency and
        profitability for fishfarmers.
     - to follow precisely ammonia nitrogen evolution, to study the link between pathologies and
        water quality.


        4.2.3.   Feeding

In every studied site fishes are fed ad libitum, which is not always optimal.
Researchers may optimise formulation, daily ration and distribution methods. It has been shown that
catfish have better assimilation during the night (Hung et al., 1998).
If fishfarmers instituted a fasting day, feed conversion ratio would be ameliorated. It is usually advised
in fish rearing and it is also a way to reduce ammonia waste in pond and feed cost.




                                                                                                       17
        4.2.4.   Diseases and treatments identification

Most of fishfarmers do not know how to treat diseases; they do not get enough information and
training. In most cases the drugs used are not well adapted to the disease.
To improve this problem, farmers must be trained to identify pathogens and to find efficient preventive
and curative treatments.


    4.3. Environmental problem

Mortality rate in river is very high (37 %) and no infection cause has been found. Mortality in Batang
Hari River seems to be due to the waste from a wood factory upstream the studied villages.
First pollutants measurements reveal a high concentration of phenols (2,18 ppm when usual safety
standard for fish breeding is 0,001 ppm). The problems clearly started with the opening of the factory.
This mortality causes a huge loss of income to fishfarmers.
If this problem is not solved quickly aquaculture is in jeopardy and might even disappear on the river in
a very short time.


    4.4. Economic problems and market improvement

Different kinds of problems have been identified:
     - Fish farmers’ incomes decrease because of the increase in feed cost and the decrease in fish
         selling price,
     - Capital availability,
     - Commercialisation and market saturation.
Feed price may be improved with formulation research to use vegetal proteins (which reduce cost
production). That sort of research already exists and has to be carried on; it can also help fish farmers
who make the feed themselves.
To facilitate the access to capital, loans should be made accessible to farmers. Up to now, only very
few farmers could benefit from loans (in Kubu Kandang for example). The Dinas Perikanan could play
a decisive part in linking farmers to banks.

But for other problems there is only one solution: enhance the fish market. There are several ways:
    - extend the marketing area :
             • export to the other Indonesian areas that do not produce catfish,
             • invest in processing units in order to penetrate foreign markets (like shrimps in
                 Indonesia or Pangasiidae in Vietnam),
    - diversify the production :
             • produce bigger fishes,
             • incite fish farmers to make multi-specific breeding not to depend on one species,
    - diversify the products with fish processing: smoked and salted fishes, or cooked dishes.

The marketing problems may take longer to solve but they are key to the sustainability of aquaculture
in the province of Jambi.




                                                                                                      18
Conclusion
In the province of Jambi the development of aquaculture has been a real success story. In only a few
years, the number of fish farmers and production have reached unexpected levels. But nowadays this
activity already slows down. Profitability decreases, mainly because of excessive production costs and
of marketing problems.

Concerning the technique, there is no real problem, it has been well adopted by farmers and
performances are good. Only a few little things can still be improved. However, technical aid by local
institutions will be determining to solve existing and forthcoming problems.

Fish farmers proved their ability to adopt new techniques and to produce in large quantities. Today,
this incredible success is in jeopardy because of excessive feed prices and because of marketing
problems.
Research is urgently needed to solve these new problems fish farmers are facing.




                                                                                                   19
List of figures

Figure 1: Evolution of halieutic production in Jambi province........................................... 4
Figure 2: Map of the study area.............................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Evolution of dissolved oxygen concentration in ponds......................................... 8
Figure 4: Evolution of ammonia nitrogen concentration in ponds...................................... 8
Figure 5 : Pangasius hypophthalmus fingerlings suppliers................................................... 9
Figure 6: Relation between mortality rate and lime quantity in pond.............................. 14
Figure 7: Relation between mortality rate and feed conversion ratio in cages ................ 15
Figure 8: Activities (other than aquaculture) for investigated fish farmers..................... 16
Figure 9: Main activities for investigated fish farmers (percentage of income for each
    activity)............................................................................................................................ 16


List of tables

Table 1: Village presentation .................................................................................................. 6
Table 2: Physicochemical characteristics of the ponds......................................................... 7
Table 3: Physicochemical characteristics of the Batang Hari River ................................... 8
Table 4: Treatment and average doses for pond maintenance ............................................ 9
Table 5: Main production characteristics............................................................................ 11
Table 6: Average return per cycle per pond........................................................................ 12
Table 7: Average return per cycle per cage......................................................................... 12
Table 8: Average production cost per cycle......................................................................... 15

List of appendices

Appendix 1: Feed composition
Appendix 2: Simulation of net return according to feed price
Appendix 3: Comparison of feed conversion ratio and feed cost per fish between industrial and
self made feed.




                                                                                                                                        20
Appendix 1 : Feed composition




                                D1 (from shrimps)           Self made feed
                                Proteins: 42 % min.         by Bapak Mustari
                                Fat: 6% min.                Proteins : 22,29 %
                                Fibres: 3% max.             Fat : 10,12 %
                                Mineral: 16 %               Mineral : 8, 16 %
                                Humidity: 11 %              Humidity : 7,1 %
                                                            Composition : dry fishes
                                Laju                        35%, rice powder 35%,
                                Proteins: 23 à 26 %         chicken intestine 10%,
                                Fat: 3 %                    mineral 2%, palm oil 4%,
                                Fibres: 7 %                 corn 10%, wheat flour
                                Mineral: 12 %               4%, vitamins 0,5%.
                                Humidity: 12 %
                                                            by Bapak Ambo Undru
                                                            Proteins : 21,79 %
                                                            Fat : 9,86 %
                                Note traduction :           Mineral : 10,26 %
                                Lemak = fat                 Humidity : 11,7 %
                                Serat = fibre               Composition : dry fishes
                                Abu = ashes                 40%, rice powder 35%,
                                Kadar air = water content   chicken intestine 10%,
                                                            banana 5%, palm oil 5%.




                                                                                       21
Appendix 2: Simulation of net return according to feed price

Fixed Factors in simulation:
                          Ponds                               Cages
Fingerlings                1500                                1500
Mortality (%)            12,60%                              36,60%
Average weight (kg)         0,5                                 0,5
Production (kg)           655,5                                475,5
Selling price (Rp/kg)      6560                                7290
Total Harvest (Rp)      4300080                              3466395
FCR                        1,53                                 1,87
D1 (kg)                      5                                   5
D1 cost (Rp/kg)           10000                               11250
882 (kg)                    50                                   50
882 Cost (Rp/kg)           2900                                3100
Fingerlings price (Rp)     300                                  250
Medicines (Rp)               0                                20000
Harvesting cost (Rp)     100000                               40000
Maintenance (Rp)         150000                                  0
Depreciation (Rp)         27050                               132600
Fixed costs (Rp)         922050                               778850
Feed quantity (kg)       947,915                             834,185

Breakeven point is reached for a feed price of:
   - for rearing in ponds: Rp 3564/kg
   - for rearing in cages: Rp 3222/kg

Evolution of net return with feed price
In ponds:
                                               1000000

                                               800000
                    Bénéfice net (Rp)




                                               600000

                                               400000

                                               200000

                                                     0
                                                     2500   2700   2900   3100     3300    3500    3700   3900
                                               -200000
In cages:                                       500000
                                                                     prix de l'aliment (Rp/kg)
                                                400000
                                                300000
                                                200000
                           Bénéfice net (Rp)




                                                100000
                                                     0
                                                     2500
                                               -100000      2700   2900    3100    3300     3500   3700   3900
                                               -200000
                                               -300000
                                               -400000
                                               -500000
                                                                     Prix de l'aliment (Rp/kg)




                                                                                                                 22
 Appendix 3: Comparison of feed conversion ratio and feed cost per fish between industrial
 and self made feed

Variance analysis: one factor

DETAILS
      Groups              Sampling          Amount      Average    Variance
FCR self made feed                     8   12,8428705   1,60535882 0,01477407
FCR industrial feed                  101   153,776963   1,52254419 0,15392082


VARIANCE ANALYSIS
                                            Liberty     Squares
   Variations source   Squares amount       degree      average        F      Probability        F critic
Between groups             0,05083923               1   0,05083923 0,35105659 0,5547657        3,92984134
Intra-group                    15,4955            107   0,14481776

Total                       15,5463393            108


Variance analysis: one factor

DETAILS
        Groups            Sampling         Amount       Average      Variance
Self made feed cost
per fish                              8    13203,7097   1650,46371   80345,9142
Industrial feed cost
per fish                             101   182793,553   1809,83716   552408,918


VARIANCE ANALYSIS
                                            Liberty     Squares
   Variations source   Squares amount       degree      average          F       Probability     F critic
Between Groups             188285,481               1   188285,481   0,36102778 0,54920667     3,92984134
Intra-group                55803313,2             107   521526,291

Total                       55991598,7            108




                                                                                                23

								
To top